1. 5/1/2019 3:12 AM
SHARED STEWARDSHIP STABILITY, TRANSPARENCY AND PREDICTABILITY IN ALLOCATION
November 26, 2010
Vancouver

2. Purpose of Presentation
5/1/2019 3:12 AM
Purpose of Presentation
Obtain feedback on DFO’s ongoing approach of allocation stability to increase transparency and predictability in allocation decision making
Proposed approach to allocation decision making would apply nationally, to fisheries managed by DFO (e.g. the Atlantic, Pacific and, Central and Arctic fisheries)
Would only apply to sharing arrangements in commercial fisheries (including Aboriginal communal) and recreational fisheries, and
Would only apply after sharing arrangements have been stabilized
Discuss approach of non-intervention
The proposed approach would encourage consensual adjustments between commercial fleets (including Aboriginal communal) , the recreational sector, and other groups with a stake in the fishery

3. Context – Importance of Stability
5/1/2019 3:12 AM
Context – Importance of Stability
Fisheries are generally fully subscribed – adjustments affect participants
Allocation stability supports viable fisheries
Disputes over shares reduces focus on conservation and on economic prosperity

4. Context – Importance of Stability con’t
5/1/2019 3:12 AM
Context – Importance of Stability con’t
Current legislation contains no specific framework to guide Minister’s decisions
Lack of framework leads to a sense of instability in allocations, and resource users often lobby the Department and the Minister
Stability improves economic performance by supporting long-term business decisions
Stability also improves conservation outcomes since those who have a share in a fishery will know that they have a stake in the future returns of the fishery

5. Context – Importance of Stability con’t
5/1/2019 3:12 AM
Context – Importance of Stability con’t
Current sharing arrangements today are the result of years of work by stakeholders, Aboriginal groups, Provinces, and DFO
Discussions include complex issues ranging from conflicting data series, quantitative and qualitative evidence for historical dependence, adjacency, economic viability, past ministerial decisions, etc.
It is time to move past this discussion

6. Aboriginal Groups Allocations for Aboriginal Groups
5/1/2019 3:12 AM
Aboriginal Groups
Allocations for Aboriginal Groups
Allocations for Aboriginal groups fall into two categories:
Food, Social and Ceremonial (FSC)
After conservation, FSC fisheries have priority over other uses of the fishery:
The approach to managing FSC fisheries have remained unchanged as a result of stabilizing allocations, and would remain unchanged with the proposed approach
2. Commercial Fisheries
Aboriginal groups have expressed a desire to be more involved in decision-making about allocations
Aboriginal groups have expressed a need for greater access in order to improve economic prosperity or to accommodate rights
Commercial fisheries management takes into account existing or asserted Aboriginal and Treaty rights.

7. 5/1/2019 3:12 AM
Proposed Approach
The Proposed approach is based on a continuation of policy, and legislative efforts since 2004 (AFPR, Bill C-32)
Based on the following principles:
Allocation Stability
Shared Stewardship
Transparency

8. 5/1/2019 3:12 AM
Allocation Stability
Sharing arrangements are in place for most fisheries and in the Atlantic they are now on the web
Pacific shares will also go on the web in the near future
Future changes would only occur through a consensual shared stewardship approach, or in very rare circumstances, Ministerial intervention

9. 5/1/2019 3:12 AM
Shared Stewardship
From time to time commercial fleets (ex. commercial and Aboriginal communal commercial fisheries), recreational fisheries, or others with a stake in the fishery would determine that permanent adjustments to sharing arrangements are needed
To promote shared stewardship, a consensual-adjustment approach would be promoted as the preferred means by which such adjustments are accomplished.
Consensual adjustment means that each eligible party to a transaction has come to a decision (unanimously if a fleet) to adjust sharing arrangements between themselves.
One party is willing to decrease their allocation, while another party is willing to increase their allocation
Consensual-adjustment would have to be consistent with DFO policies
Consultations would occur where allocation decisions could affect existing or asserted Aboriginal and Treaty rights.

10. Allocation Adjustment
5/1/2019 3:12 AM
Allocation Adjustment
Sometimes consensual adjustment would not be able to be achieved
In these cases, a more predictable and transparent process is proposed to guide whether the Department would intervene, and how a decision would be reached should intervention be deemed necessary
The proposed approach would outline the circumstances under which the Department would intervene
Applicant must demonstrate circumstance exists. Circumstances must be detailed, and defined objectively to avoid heavy administrative burden of reviewing applications.
The proposed process would not supplement or interfere with allocation procedures that already exist in Treaties including Land Claim Agreements or other procedures that DFO is legally required to fulfill

11. 5/1/2019 3:12 AM
Predictable and Transparent Process con’t Criteria for Allocation Adjustment
Conservation
Intervention Legally Required (e.g. treaty rights including land claims agreements, Aboriginal rights, responding to court rulings, etc.)

12. Predictable and Transparent Process con’t
5/1/2019 3:12 AM
Predictable and Transparent Process con’t
All decisions would take into account a pre-defined set of ‘criteria’ consistent with recent bills aimed at modernizing the Fisheries Act
Decision making would also take into account input from affected stakeholders and Aboriginal groups
The Minister could choose to evaluate options and make a decision himself/herself, or establish and seek advice from an advisory board

13. Steps in Proposed Process
5/1/2019 3:12 AM
Steps in Proposed Process
The process would involve four key steps:
Application for an Allocation Adjustment
Evaluate if appropriate circumstance to intervene; and
Decide if application has merit;
Publish intent to consider an allocation adjustment. Affected Aboriginal groups will be given notice and input will be sought.
Considerations for Allocation Adjustment
Any person or group with a stake in the fishery can raise issues to be considered by the Minister.
Seek input from affected Aboriginal groups as appropriate
Decision
In making decisions, the Minister would take into consideration pre-established criteria including the requirement to consult Aboriginal groups where they risk being affected;
Minister decision would be made public and would include a rationale for his/her decision.
Public rational shall reflect confidentiality where legally required (e.g. Treaty)
Publication
Final decision would be published in the Canada Gazette, internet, and other relevant publications. Affected Aboriginal groups will be notified

14. Considerations From Bill C-32:
5/1/2019 3:12 AM
Considerations
From Bill C-32:
25. (1) In exercising the powers under section 27 or 37 in relation to a fishery, the Minister must first take into account the need to conserve and protect fish and fish habitat. Further considerations (2) The Minister must then also take into account (a) the compliance of fishers in the fishery with this Act or the regulations; (b) the importance to fishers of secure access to the fishery and of allocation stability; (c) fairness to individuals, between communities and between regions; (d) fishers’ adjacency to the fishery; (e) fishers’ historical participation in the fishery; (f) economic viability in the fishery; (g) the best use of fish in order to fulfill the fishery’s economic, social and cultural potential; (h) the importance of maintaining public access to the fishery; and (i) any other consideration that the Minister considers relevant.